Mehmeti v. Warden FCI Elkton, 4:14-cv-00547

Petitioner Faik Mehmeti, incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn, was charged March 13, 2012 with Code 104 (possession/manufacture of a weapon) after an officer found a 7" sharpened toothbrush protruding from under a locker where Mehmeti’s ID card was located.
Mehmeti contends the weapon was under a locker bolted to the floor and only retrievable with a pry-bar; he says he had no access to tools and requested witnesses (including the searching officer and his cellmate) who were unavailable at the DHO hearing.
At the DHO hearing Mehmeti waived a staff representative, the DHO found him guilty relying on the reporting officer’s written statement and a photograph, and sanctioned him with loss of 40 days’ good-time credit, disciplinary segregation, privileges loss, and a fine.
Mehmeti exhausted two levels of administrative review on other issues (appeal denied regionally and by Central Office), but did not raise the discrete procedural claim about denial of witness testimony in his appeals.
Magistrate Judge Parker recommended denial of the §2241 habeas petition: (1) finding the DHO’s decision was supported by "some evidence" and (2) ruling that procedural-due-process/witness claims were procedurally defaulted for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Code 104 finding	Mehm eti lacked access to the space; weapon couldn’t be his — constructive possession improper	DHO relied on reporting officer’s statement and photo; that constitutes some evidence	Court: Some evidence supported the DHO; claim denied
Denial of witnesses / procedural due process	Mehmeti was effectively forced to proceed without officer witness (or stay in SHU indefinitely)	Government says Mehmeti waived witnesses/declined staff rep; record ambiguous	Court: Claim not raised in administrative appeals; thus procedurally defaulted and denied
Improper use of constructive possession	Item was in a common/inaccessible area accessible to others (cellmate, prior occupants) so constructive possession inapt	BOP: not addressed in detail; relies on DHO credibility finding	Court: Constructive-possession application provided some evidence; claim denied
Equal protection / selective prosecution	Only Mehmeti was charged though cellmate had equal access — selective application of discipline	Government: No constitutional requirement to charge all potentially culpable persons; prosecutorial/disciplinary discretion	Court: No evidence of discriminatory intent or similarly situated class; claim denied

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prison disciplinary due process rights: notice, ability to call witnesses/produce evidence, written statement of reasons)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for prison disciplinary findings that revoke good time credits)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus is proper remedy for prisoners challenging loss of good-time credits)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions — cited for contrast to Hill)
Armstrong v. United States, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (requirements for selective-prosecution equal protection claim: discriminatory effect and intent)
Futernick v. Sumpter Twp., 78 F.3d 1051 (6th Cir. 1996) (no constitutional right to have law enforcement uniformly enforce laws; prosecutorial discretion)